Search results

The present study aims to develop a measure of the market‐creating service innovation (MCSI) proposed by Berry et al., verify the typology, identify the relationship between MCSI and each new service development (NSD) stage, and assess the degree to which the role of customers involved in each NSD stage contributes to each type of MCSI.

A mail survey was sent to service companies in Taiwan, the target respondents being senior managers with experience in developing successful new services in the past three years. A total of 179 usable questionnaires were collected, resulting in a respondent rate of 21.2 per cent. The responses covered a wide range of service industries.

The present study confirms that the four MCSIs proposed by Berry et al. do indeed exist in practice. The degree of association between each NSD stage and each type of MCSI varies according to MCSI type. The statistical weights for customers involved in each type of MCSI are also different.

This study extends a theoretical mechanism of NSD that customers indeed contribute to service innovation, but their involvement varies depending on the characteristics of the service innovation.

Utilizing a new scale of MCSI, service providers can evaluate what types of MCSI are a better fit for their business.

This study provides a better understanding of MCSI, which helps service providers to properly allocate their limited resources. In addition, this study clarifies the degree to which the values of customer involvement in NSD contribute to MCSI.

The Communist revolution in China has led to the appearance in this country of increasing numbers of Chinese books in Russian translation. The Chinese names in Cyrillic transcription have presented many librarians and students with a new problem, that of identifying the Cyrillic form of a name with the customary Wade‐Giles transcription. The average cataloguer, the first to meet the problem, has two obvious lines of action, and neither is satisfactory. He can save up the names until he has a chance to consult an expert in Chinese. Apart altogether from the delay, the expert, confronted with a few isolated names, might simply reply that he could do nothing without the Chinese characters, and it is only rarely that Soviet books supply them. Alternatively, he can transliterate the Cyrillic letters according to the system in use in his library and leave the matter there for fear of making bad worse. As long as the writers are not well known, he may feel only faintly uneasy; but the appearance of Chzhou Ėn‐lai (or Čžou En‐laj) upsets his equanimity. Obviously this must be entered under Chou; and we must have Mao Tse‐tung and not Mao Tsze‐dun, Ch'en Po‐ta and not Chėn' Bo‐da. But what happens when we have another . . . We can hardly write Ch'en unless we know how to represent the remaining elements in the name; yet we are loth to write Ch'en in one name and Chėn' in another.